Why do you still believe that a collapse due to fire wouldn't be possible?

[uke2se]

I can't help but notice that none of the twoofers in this thread has even attempted to answer the question in the OP - you know, the topic of the thread. It seems that the standard twoofer MO when confronted with a question they don't want to/can't answer is to start JAQing off like crazy.

 

[Carlos]

Tube in tube design is not that unusual.

What about a tube in tube building on fire?

The WTC design made it stronger than other high rise buildings. The design is what's credited with the WTC buildings being able to take the plane impacts. This does not help your case.

We are talking about fire resistence.

Speculation never exactly equated as to how and how much.

Are you suggesting the fire protection could resist the explosion?

The amount lost is irrelevant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EULH-epXrew

Sprinkler systems in the tower are thought to be damaged on the floors of the impacts based on NIST calculations. This is speculation not proven. We know the sprinklers were working on other floors from witness statements of water running down the stairs. Any assertions about what was going on on the impact floors is pure speculation. The towers survived a fire in the seventies without a sprinkler. Still we are only talking about one hour on a few floors that it needed to survive

Water running down the stairs doesn't mean the sprinlçers system was working. It could be an broken plumbing.

All of which the building took and remained standing. WTC7 didn't even need this in your OCT to collapse.

This thread is about the WTC 1 and 2.

All of which the building took and remained standing.

But made the remaining columns had to bear a greater load than before.

You hardly have any plane left in PA and at the Pentagon, but now all of a sudden the plane debris is overloading the tower floors? In your so called raging inferno no less. I guess the aluminum should have survived what you claim the steel didn't. Yeah right.

ho ho ho
That's truthers claim.

Most of which burnt up outside the building not to mention the fireball you are all clamoring about around here all the time. The rest burnt up in a matter of minutes according to your OCT. The building still stood.

What about the furniture ignited by the fuel?

Not very long at all.

But enough to cause unprotect steel columns and trusses to fail.

 

[cantonear1968]

I wasn't pretending that it was my own work. I linked to the reference site within the wall of copied text.

Actually, no you didn't. The reference you see in the quoted text from my reply is how it appears in that format when referencing the pictures. In your original post it only showed the pictures and gave no reference to 911research's web site.

If you are going use other's work, at least be honest about it.

 

[BigAl]

Tube in tube design is not that unusual.

Name another one.

One of the principle engineers attributed the collapse to the thousands of gallons of fuel that ignited the multi-floor fires.

Henry Guthard, engineer and one of [WTC designer] Yamasaki's original partners who also worked as the project manager at the [WTC] site, said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to have pieces come out the other side, it was amazing the building stood. To defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in a building of 1350 feet is just not possible.

http://snurl.com/j54gc (Report From Ground Zero page 188)

 

[Patriots4Truth]

...
2)[/B] "comparisons between the Windsor tower and the WTC Towers are limited because of the very different structures of these buildings. The Twin Towers and Building 7 were both 100% steel-framed, with large wide-flange columns and box columns, some measuring over four feet wide and fabricated of steel up to five inches thick. Severe fires in other skyscrapers which, like the WTC Towers, were 100% steel-framed, have not produced even partial collapses.

In contrast to the WTC Towers, the Windsor building was framed primarily in steel-reinforced concrete, with columns of concrete reinforced by thin sections of rebar. The concrete pillars in the Windsor building are clearly visible in the photographs showing the intact core exposed by the collapsed facade. The very light construction of the perimeter, described here, makes it clear that the core was the main load-bearing component of the building."
...

I have nothing to gain by pretending this is my own work

 

[Bell]

I have nothing to gain by pretending this is my own work

Then you should have been clear and honest about it.

 

[Bell]

Name another one.

I think the The Bank of Oklahoma tower uses the same design. Which seems logical, since it is a scaled replica of the WTC.

http://www.believermag.com/issues/200811/?read=article_taylor

 

[Patriots4Truth]

Then you should have been clear and honest about it.

or you could have just acknowledged the obvious...

 

[Bell]

or you could have just acknowledged the obvious...

Which I did.

 

[Patriots4Truth]

Which I did.

the obvious meaning it wasn't my own work

 

[T.A.M.]

the obvious meaning it wasn't my own work

The only indication your original post gave, that it was not yours, was that it was too articulate and put together formatting wise.

I cut a piece of it out and did a google search to match it up. Seems others here did as well.

The point is, it is not only dishonest to not provide a link to work presented that is not your own, but it is against forum rules

TAM

 

[beachnut]

... the sudden global collapse of the entire structure in a matter of seconds ...

Sudden? How many hours for WTC7? Collapsing more than twice as slow as free-fall. How long for fires in WTC1 and 2? You use the biblical time scale for sudden? You have failed ideas on 911 and your qualifications, eating wings and watching; doing something, having evidence is past your skill set, as evidence by your choice of moronic delusions on 911 issues and failure to contact the FBI with your "ample evidence". Oops, you have no evidence. What moronic delusion do you have on Flight 77 and Flight 93 that are as bad as your understanding of fire? Fire science, not in your bag of tricks, wings and NFL are. Better keep to what you know, understanding 911 is not your forte. Order more wings.

Fire destroys the strength of steel, in fires not fought, the building might collapse. Please present buildings with fire systems broke, no firefighting, with broken windows and openings for air to get to the fire which did not fail, which were not totaled by fire. Post some! Do it; darn, you are eating and watching the NWO play football.

Fire totals buildings. Firemen and a sprinkler system saved this building from collapse. No one fought the fires in WTC 1, 2, and 7. There were totaled. This fire was fought, the building was totaled. Fire destroys the strength of steel. Reality destroys delusions, if you can grasp reality. You grasp wings, not reality.

 

[Patriots4Truth]

The link was in the text which I pointed out.
But thanks for reinforming me about forum rules
I haven't been here very long

 

[Grizzly Bear]

A quick comment while I'm on break...

Fires Insufficient To Cause Collapse

Mister citizen assumes the only fuel available for the fires was the jet fuel. It's a repeat of the "no steel over 600oF" claim which itself is based on a bastardization of the NIST report's conclusion. Given his premise is incorrect, his video is of little to no relevance.

Buildings Built To Withstand Airplane Strikes

When the WTC towers were built there was extensive controversy over their safety in emergencies. The NYC Fire Department protested, as did a host of other agencies and professional associations. The buildings were constructed in bulk and height far in excess of what municipal constuction and zoning codes allowed. However, the Port Authority, a quasi-governmental agency with exceptional powers inherited from the regime of Robert Moses, was specifically exempt from compliance with municipal codes. The real estate, construction and finance industries were powerful supporters of the project.

Aside, I add that in 30 some years of examining buildings in New York, I have found none, zero, which are fully compliant with municipal building codes. It is a terrible, little reported scandal of the city in which it is considered to be bad business to fully comply with codes.

source

Also, pertinent to the video's specific claim: the effect of fires following such an impact were not considered.

Speed Of The Collapse Was Too Fast
Why the speed issue is always brought up is beyond me... Once the collapse initiated it was collapsing regardless of whether it took 10 or 30 seconds... Mr citizen obviously cites the commission report, which for whatever reason truthers to this day still hold the absurd belief it was intended to be a engineering report as opposed to a bipartisan investigation concerning what lead to the attacks happening, not determining how or why the towers failed.

The First Steel Framed High-Rise Fire Collapses
"First time in history" is a bowl of laughs... To claim this requires an absolute bastardization and ignorance of steel material properties and general design case studies. His opinions being based on such faulty premises renders his video irrelevant.

WTC Collapse
This was a regurgitation of all the videos in your list preceding it.


WTC 7's Collapse Is Still A Mystery
This comment was pretty stupid, considering only "on-tenth" or so of WTC 1 & 2 each were burning.

Makes me genuinely curious if he's ever seen a building up close while it was on fire.

He also believes the smoke emanating from WTC 7 was not from WTC 7... similar to the DRG/Jones claim that the smoke instead came from WTC 5...

Apparently his "mystery" is part of his faulty premise... and this video is also not relevant to any degree.

South Tower Should Have Toppled

Absolutely fail, the towers were not solid trees.

patriots4truth, these videos are little more than psuedoscience and regurgitation. I would be interested if you can offer your own argumentinstead of offering a regurgitation of 2006 from unqualified individuals. Thankyou

 

[Bell]

The link was in the text which I pointed out.
But thanks for reinforming me about forum rules
I haven't been here very long

That's weird. You agreed with this forum's Membership Agreement when you signed up.

Here it is again: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25744

Read it sometime. Especially rule 4.

 

[T.A.M.]

The link was in the text which I pointed out.
But thanks for reinforming me about forum rules
I haven't been here very long

Actually, that was a link that references people further down the page. It is a link that is in the original material. Yes, clicking on it, would bring them to that page, but that is not a proper linking to your cited material...but you know that, you just find it impossible to simply say...I made a mistake, sorry, I'll try not to let it happen again.

You are welcome for the information on forum rules.

TAM

 

[beachnut]

...
Buildings Built To Withstand Airplane Strikes

...

You post videos filled with lies. Are you unable to understand the lies?

The WTC tower design could resist an impact of an aircraft at 200 mph and less. If you could grasp physics you could calculate that the impacts on 911 were 7 and 11 times greater than the design Robertson had for the towers.

You could check this, but it requires math and physics, two skills 911 truth does not have.

Proof of my claims can be checked with E=1/2mv², and asking Robertson (no one else) what the details were for an impact of an aircraft considered by him. BTW, in a study done after 911, engineers found aircraft at and below 200 mph would not enter the building, verifying Robertsons design.

Why are you able to post idiotic videos and not get anything right about 911? How do you do it? Are you trying to post moronic lies? You have perfected it.

 

[Patriots4Truth]

the speed issue is of obvious importance. if you don't see that you are truly lost

 

[BigAl]

I think the The Bank of Oklahoma tower uses the same design. Which seems logical, since it is a scaled replica of the WTC.

http://www.believermag.com/issues/200811/?read=article_taylor

Thank you. Interesting. It's 1:4 scale and I bet lunch that unlike WTC1/2, it is built to real fire codes.

The 1:4 scale means the floor spans are tiny amd stiffer, less subject to sag in a fire. The 1:4 scale means by the cube law that forces will be about 1/64th of those in WTC for similar damage.

In any case, WTC1/2 were subject to all of these effets simultaneously.

• tube-in-tube structural design unique to WTC1/2 and shown to be subject to truss failure in fire.
• effectively no fireproofing
• no working fire sprinkler system
• hit by 140 tons of aircraft at 450MPH.
• Resulting structural damage
• Local floor overload from the tons of aircraft debris
• thousands of gallons of fuel ignited on many inside the building
• resulting hour of fire
• No firefighting effort possible.

 

[beachnut]

haha . What a fiesty reply! 9 years of obsessed debunkers...

Hardcore debunkers like you should get the phrase "got some evidence" tattooed on your knee since it's the typical jerk reply to anything truthers say

In my case you are asking for evidence of thermite when it hasn't even been mentioned in this thread

Do You plagiarize all your knowledge on 911; why? Can't you think for yourself?

Ironically, your plagiarized post proves fires destroys buildings and you have no clue why.

All the videos you post are lies. Do you have special google filter to find only idiotic videos produced by morons? Where did you get it?